Skywest

[Seggy]

@Seggy I never said I work for Skywest. I worked for another 121 regional who is represented by ALPA. Pretty easy to figure out in my last few responses, and I've never hid the fact either.

I apologize for missing this.

The negotiations I spoke of, where we were threatened of more sourced flying going to RAH, ExpressJet, PSA, and Mesa, happened when I worked for said ALPA represented regional. Therefore you're argument is losing ground. I worked for an ALPA airline. We were "threatened" that if we don't vote yes then these other ALPA (and RAH-I forget who their union is) regionals would get the additional flying. Again, Skywest was not mentioned. Just the previous mentioned union regionals.

When I was at Colgan negotiating our first contract, the company lawyers played a BS game of saying our Slaab flying would be given to Commutair if this contract wasn't similar to what we were working under pre-contract. Our ALPA lawyer was also the Commutair lawyer for their pilot group and he quickly called the company lawyers bluff. Point is, your MEC had a lot of coordination with the other ALPA carriers when they were going through what they went through. They thought the other ALPA Carriers would also fall in line.

As for the "under one umbrella" comment. I sure hope you're not referring to all regionals being represented by ALPA? That would make it harder for airlines to use each other as threats? Really?? I'm pretty sure I JUST described two different instances where my ALPA airline was threatened with flying being sourced to another ALPA airline. Yea, that REALLY wasn't hard for management to do. And I'm pretty sure my ALPA airline decided enough is enough in terms of concessions. What did management do? Went to ANOTHER ALPA airline and threatened them. They approved the TA.

No doubt that other ALPA Airline took a different direction than y'all. I never said that it was right to do what they did. Yes, you can bitch and moan all you want about it. Someone at Skywest can't.

So one ALPA airline boned other ALPA airlines by agreeing to capping CAs at 12 years and capping FOs at 4 years. Man, management really went out of their way to make that happen. They asked two companies for concessions. The second one took the deal. So again, how would being under one umbrella be beneficial? I don't see it.

It would be better to have all the airlines under the ALPA umbrella just to attempt to get everyone on the same page. Even though that second airline took a different direction you guys did, there was a venue to talk about it ahead of time. Skywest wasn't able to have that talk. You guys were at least able to talk about flows, Skywest wasn't...

 

[Seggy]

I'm sorry @Seggy, I just looked over the RLA again. I'm not finding ANYWHERE that says you CAN'T have a contract without union representation.

Did you look at the link I posted DIRECTLY from the NMB website? Here it is again....

http://www.nmb.gov/helpdesk/helpdesk_union-representation.html

You work under the RLA. The NMB makes sure you do that legally. Hence the following (again)....

Certification and Decertification

When a union or an individual seeks to represent a specific group of employees (craft-or-class) for the purpose of negotiating as a group on wages, hours, benefits, and working conditions (collective bargaining), the NMB investigates the case. The NMB examines the jurisdiction of the carrier under the Railway Labor Act ( RLA); the appropriate carrier and craft-or-class designation; the eligibility of voters; and whether an election is justified. If an election is authorized, the NMB conducts the election and certifies the winning union or individual to represent the group. Additionally, the NMB ensures that the representation process occurs without interference, influence or coercion.

If you don't have a union (which is certified under the NMB), the NMB can't have jurisdiction on the begging from the company or the piece of paper some are calling a 'contract'.

Under the RLA, when negotiations break down under Section Two or Six negotiations, self help processes happen once released under the NMB. I would like to see how that would work with the Skywest 'contract'.......

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Not entirely sure what the PPM is.

Glorified toilet paper.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Our agreements are legally binding. Or was that missed in my first response to your question? SAPA is recognized as our official bargaining unit. They negotiate with the company and when an agreement is reached and signed by both sides it is legally binding. It cannot be changed "ten minuets later." Because said agreement is legally binding. Like I said in my first response to your question.

It truly scares me how easily they've conned you into believing this drivel. The profession is doomed.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Take a break from the politics, This is why you fly...

No, I fly to make money.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I'm sorry @Seggy, I just looked over the RLA again. I'm not finding ANYWHERE that says you CAN'T have a contract without union representation.

Who are the two legal entities entering into the contract? Because without an NMB certified union, you don't have one. It takes two parties to enter into a contract, and at Skywest, there is only one: the company.

 

[Retired in SAN]

No, I fly to make money.

And there's plenty of that in this industry. Correct, that was humor..

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

And there's plenty of that in this industry. Correct, that was humor..

Really? I'm doing pretty well. Perhaps you need a union.

 

[Retired in SAN]

Really? I'm doing pretty well. Perhaps you need a union.

Uhh, no. Happily retired after 25 years in the business, thanks..

 

[etflies]

It truly scares me how easily they've conned you into believing this drivel. The profession is doomed.

So far @Seggy has one of the more informative posts above. With that said, I may still be missing something here as the way I understand it, the information in the link seems to focus on the involvement of the NMB in certifying a union but doesn't necessarily support the assertion that a certified union MUST be in place and is the only way for a contract or agreement to be legally binding.

Now, I don't speak lawyer well so its possible I'm missing something here because the information I posted was the NMB's answer to SkyWest pilots when the pilot group was first considering a union. The NMB stated that the two requirements needed for a contract or an agreement to be legally binding were 1) a body chosen by the pilots to represent them and 2) for that body to be recognized by the company. At SkyWest those conditions have been met.

So, I guess my question is if a certified union is the only way under the NMB/RLA for an agreement or contract to be legally binding, where does it expressly state this requirement and why would the NMB give the above answer when SkyWest was originally considering a union? Either they misled SkyWest pilots or the conditions for a legally binding agreement have since changed.

Further, I'm open to be educated so rather than post about how the profession is doomed and drawing conclusions about someone you've never meet or talked to, help me fill in what I may be missing in a professional and civil manner.

 

[BobDDuck]

Now, I don't speak lawyer well so its possible I'm missing something here but it seems to me that the information I posted taken from the NMB's own answer to SkyWest when the pilot group was first considering a union that stated the two entities needed for a contract or an agreement to be legally binding were 1) a body chosen by the pilots and 2) for that body to be recognized by the company. At SkyWest those conditions have been met.

The part you are missing is that the company (Skywest) has not recognized the body (SAPA) in the legal sense that the NMB is referencing here. As much as it really grinds Skywest pilot's gears when people refer to SAPA as the Student Council, it is a good analogy. A school often times will listen to a student council's recommendations but they are under no legal requirement to follow them, unlike say, a Mayor or a School Board which are (depending on the municipality) legally recognized oversight groups.

 

[etflies]

The part you are missing is that the company (Skywest) has not recognized the body (SAPA) in the legal sense that the NMB is referencing here. As much as it really grinds Skywest pilot's gears when people refer to SAPA as the Student Council, it is a good analogy. A school often times will listen to a student council's recommendations but they are under no legal requirement to follow them, unlike say, a Mayor or a School Board which are (depending on the municipality) legally recognized oversight groups.

Ok, thank you, that does help.

So unless I'm still mistaken, the company has acknowledged SAPA as the official bargaining unit for the pilots, who chose SAPA to represent them. Strictly speaking with regard to the terms the NMB stated when our pilots originally were considering unionizing we do have legally binding agreements since the requirements are met. However, because we fall under the RLA, and SAPA does not meet the NMB's requirements to be legally recognized therefore we don't actually have a contract that can be upheld.

Clear as mud? I'm interested in not just the ALPA guys responses but anyone with a better knowledge of SAPA than myself.


Its been a long day and I'm tired so I'll sleep on it and pick this back up when I finish this trip. Thanks for helping clarify!

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

etflies, there is one key element that proves conclusively that SAPA is not a legally recognized agent. That element is the fact that "company unions" have been outlawed in this country since 1935. The National Labor Relations Act states that employers are not permitted "to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it." SAPA is funded by your company. Because of this, it is questionable whether Skywest is even in compliance with federal law by having SAPA on property. But what is absolutely certain is that SAPA is not a legal entity capable of entering into binding contracts. That isn't my opinion. It's the opinion of dozens of labor attorneys, all of whom specialize in RLA law.

 

[jtrain609]

etflies, there is one key element that proves conclusively that SAPA is not a legally recognized agent. That element is the fact that "company unions" have been outlawed in this country since 1935. The National Labor Relations Act states that employers are not permitted "to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it." SAPA is funded by your company. Because of this, it is questionable whether Skywest is even in compliance with federal law by having SAPA on property. But what is absolutely certain is that SAPA is not a legal entity capable of entering into binding contracts. That isn't my opinion. It's the opinion of dozens of labor attorneys, all of whom specialize in RLA law.

Then why'd alpa lose on the company union issue in the federal case in Northern California?

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Then why'd alpa lose on the company union issue in the federal case in Northern California?

Wait...standing?




AFIS LINK ACK

 

[B767]

I'm pretty sure that being an airline, and airline employees, we operate under the RLA. As we have mentioned a million times. As such, the NRLA doesn't apply to us. Perhaps that's why ALPA lost in California? RLA makes no mention of disallowing "company unions."

 

[jtrain609]

I'm pretty sure that being an airline, and airline employees, we operate under the RLA. As we have mentioned a million times. As such, the NRLA doesn't apply to us. Perhaps that's why ALPA lost in California? RLA makes no mention of disallowing "company unions."

You may consider looking that up again. Company union is a term of art.

 

[jtrain609]

Fourth. Organization and collective bargaining, freedom from interference by carrier, assistance in organizing or maintaining organization by carrier forbidden; deduction of dues from wages forbidden

Employees shall have the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing. The majority of any craft or class of employees shall have the right to determine who shall be the representative of the craft or class for the purposes of this chapter. No carrier, its officers, or agents shall deny or in any way question the right of its employees to join, organize, or assist in organizing the labor organization of their choice, and it shall be unlawful for any carrier to interfere in any way with the organization of its employees, or to use the funds of the carrier in maintaining or assisting or contributing to any labor organizabion, labor representative, or other agency of collective bargaining, or in performing any work therefor, or to influence or coerce employees in an effort to induce them to join or remain or not to join or remain members of any labor organization, or to deduct from the wages of employees any dues, fees, assessments, or other contributions payable to labor organizations, or to collect or to assist in the collection of any such dues, fees, assessments, or other contributions: Provided, That nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit a carrier from permitting an employee, individually, or local representatives of employees from conferring with management during working hours without loss of time, or to prohibit a carrier from furnishing free transportation to its employees while engaged in the business of a labor organization.

 

[B767]

Good enough for me! Haven't read the thing in a day, so I forgot already most of what's in there.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

It would be better to have all the airlines under the ALPA umbrella just to attempt to get everyone on the same page. Even though that second airline took a different direction you guys did, there was a venue to talk about it ahead of time. Skywest wasn't able to have that talk. You guys were at least able to talk about flows, Skywest wasn't...

I've got to be the only regional pilot alive that DOES NOT WANT a flow through, and considers ANY deal that offers a flow through in lieu of "MOAR MONEY FOR MOAR SEATS" to be a non-starter.

The part you are missing is that the company (Skywest) has not recognized the body (SAPA) in the legal sense that the NMB is referencing here. As much as it really grinds Skywest pilot's gears when people refer to SAPA as the Student Council, it is a good analogy. A school often times will listen to a student council's recommendations but they are under no legal requirement to follow them, unlike say, a Mayor or a School Board which are (depending on the municipality) legally recognized oversight groups.

It's much like JetBlue's arrangement, as I understand it. Regarding the binding nature of the policy manual, I would reason that the policy manual is as binding as any other element of company policy regarding matters of employment.